Camera glass and megapixels
Feb 22, 2016 11:40:52 #
travelwp wrote:
Yes, an A7RII with a 70-200 F2.8 would look silly and, in my opinion, a heavy Nikon body would be easier to handle big and heavy lenses.
My reason for looking at the A7RII is strictly for use with a 50mm lens. Lately I have been shooting almost everything with the 50mm and would purchase a small body with a 50mm if the combination produced superb results.
My reason for looking at the A7RII is strictly for use with a 50mm lens. Lately I have been shooting almost everything with the 50mm and would purchase a small body with a 50mm if the combination produced superb results.
Ahhh...gotcha...
Then yes, the A7Rii and fast prime or two would be back saver over the 810 and comparative lenses...just don't forget to add an extra battery to extend shooting time.
Feb 22, 2016 11:44:07 #
There is a third side to this question--photo paper won't accept more than about 240 dpi no matter what you throw at it
Stan
Stan
Feb 22, 2016 11:47:08 #
Cdouthitt wrote:
just don't forget to add an extra battery to extend shooting time.
YES, that was one of the negatives about the AR7II. The difficulty is that as soon as you want more things, like a bigger battery, then the whole camera deal gets physically bigger. I agree.
Feb 22, 2016 12:05:22 #
stan0301 wrote:
There is a third side to this question--photo paper won't accept more than about 240 dpi no matter what you throw at it
Stan
Stan
My Epson 3880 says it prints 2880 dot per inch. Where do all those extra dots go? I'm confused
---
Feb 22, 2016 12:16:55 #
Bill_de wrote:
My Epson 3880 says it prints 2880 dot per inch. Where do all those extra dots go? I'm confused
---
---
I think you're confusing ppi vs dpi...
Feb 22, 2016 12:33:58 #
boberic wrote:
I know that this doesn't answer your question- but unless you print to large dimensions (larger than 16 by 24 ) you can't tell the difference between 20-36- or 50 megapixels. (unless you agressively crop the lower megapixel image)
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Feb 22, 2016 12:48:38 #
travelwp wrote:
As an old guy, I had to chuckle reading this. It ... (show quote)
Ok T, here's my answer. Since I'm absolutely sure you are right.
What would be cheaper to gain the same exact results...., one $3500 body and a bag full of cheap lenses worth $3000 or..., a $2000, 24mp body and a bag with $50,000 worth of lenses. I'm sure most of will shoot with the former since for most of us, we will never shoot with a full arsenal of Zeiss glass!!!
And then, if we did, we'd have to be puttering along on manual with little more ability than to chase bugs and shoot landscape....., both about as exciting as being passed out after a long binge!!!! :lol:
SS
Feb 22, 2016 13:09:13 #
You are 100% correct!! The lens is the more important than the camera. I have an old Nikon 5000 camera (12MP) and I have shots taken with the Nikor 18-55 zoom lens (the original one made, not the current one make with plastic) and the pictures are sharp.
Feb 22, 2016 13:41:38 #
" Your question is not going to result in an answer - but you will get lots of great opinions."
Here is a different sort of answer to your question.
There is an article featuring Nikon's lens designer, Sato, now, looking to the future. He recommends a pre-AI lens (I just got it in a post-AI version) as a star performer. Sato-san is answering your resolution question.
There is sooo much erroneous content about lenses on the web, maybe including this comment, that it is useful to carefully and repeatedly read what the people who know most about lens quality are saying. The problem is, they cannot say enough.
Here is a different sort of answer to your question.
There is an article featuring Nikon's lens designer, Sato, now, looking to the future. He recommends a pre-AI lens (I just got it in a post-AI version) as a star performer. Sato-san is answering your resolution question.
There is sooo much erroneous content about lenses on the web, maybe including this comment, that it is useful to carefully and repeatedly read what the people who know most about lens quality are saying. The problem is, they cannot say enough.
Gene51 wrote:
Where did you read that? You do realize you can't ... (show quote)
Feb 22, 2016 13:45:36 #
Cdouthitt wrote:
I think you're confusing ppi vs dpi...
Stan said DPI, I said Dots per inch, and my printer says Dots per inch.
I'm responding to Stan.
---
Feb 22, 2016 13:56:19 #
Here's the URL and quotation for my above post:
http://nikkor.com/technology/02.html
Sato
Actually you would be surprised by what nice of photos even the older NIKKOR lenses can take. It's almost like our forerunners who designed these lenses knew that eventually cameras like the D810 would appear so they made them adaptable. Just look at the Auto NIKKOR from the Nikon F era. I recommend the Micro-NIKKOR Auto 55mm f/3.5, for example. While some users may prefer todays modern lenses, you may be surprised at the fact that the lens still does its work perfectly. Our predecessors definitely had some insight into the future. They didn't have the tools back then, so they tried to make everything as over-spec as they could. If you look back over the design records left by our predecessors, you can see that there are entries regarding attempts to design lenses in order to reach theoretical resolutions. Advanced design concepts like this have been used in NIKKOR lenses for decades.
http://nikkor.com/technology/02.html
Sato
Actually you would be surprised by what nice of photos even the older NIKKOR lenses can take. It's almost like our forerunners who designed these lenses knew that eventually cameras like the D810 would appear so they made them adaptable. Just look at the Auto NIKKOR from the Nikon F era. I recommend the Micro-NIKKOR Auto 55mm f/3.5, for example. While some users may prefer todays modern lenses, you may be surprised at the fact that the lens still does its work perfectly. Our predecessors definitely had some insight into the future. They didn't have the tools back then, so they tried to make everything as over-spec as they could. If you look back over the design records left by our predecessors, you can see that there are entries regarding attempts to design lenses in order to reach theoretical resolutions. Advanced design concepts like this have been used in NIKKOR lenses for decades.
forjava wrote:
" Your question is not going to result in an ... (show quote)
Feb 22, 2016 15:07:14 #
megharupa8
Loc: Dallas Texas
Your answer is the reason I do enjoy reading this forum. Always something new to learn.
Gene51 wrote:
Where did you read that? You do realize you can't ... (show quote)
Feb 22, 2016 15:55:32 #
SharpShooter wrote:
What would be cheaper to gain the same exact results...., one $3500 body and a bag full of cheap lenses worth $3000 or..., a $2000, 24mp body and a bag with $50,000 worth of lenses.
Everyone would select glass before body, but you are correct, there is a dollar factor that makes one compromise.
Feb 22, 2016 16:17:49 #
forjava wrote:
Here's the URL and quotation for my above post: http://nikkor.com/technology/02.html.
Good article, thanks for sharing.
Feb 22, 2016 17:17:58 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.